ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Defendant Real submitted an ex parte declaration in support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The government objects to this ex parte submission, and asks the Court to require Mr. Real to disclose the declaration to the government, or else to strike it. Docket No. 904. Real's motion is based in part on a claim that he received erroneous advice from his former counsel regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. IT is also based on a claim of undue pressure. As the government correctly notes, "a litigant waives the attorney-client privilege by putting the lawyer's performance at issue during the course of litigation." Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 718 (9th Cir. 2003). The government cannot respond to Real's argument without knowing the specific facts he alleges. However, Real argues that disclosure of his ex parte declaration would also violate the Joint Defense Agreement entered into by his previous attorney and other attorneys representing his codefendants, disclose facts prohibited from disclosure by the Protective Order in this case, reveal the identity of informants, and reveal defense strategy. See Docket No. 905 at 5. The Court will require the disclosure of the declaration, but allow Real first to make narrowly-tailored redactions of any facts he contends should not be disclosed. The Court notes that the declaration contains many facts that are already known to the government. Nor has Real shown that all facts in the declaration are outside the scope of any waiver resulting from his asserted claims. Real's redactions should thus not be overbroad. Real may submit the proposed redacted version ex parte to the Court for review by Wednesday, May 31, 2017. The Court will review and determine which redacted facts, if any, may appropriately be withheld from disclosure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.